phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] "Predictable" vs "pseudorandom" KDFs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:33:40 +0100
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] "Predictable" vs "pseudorandom" KDFs

Reminds me of the discussion that lead to "password hashing schemes"
and some of its exotic proposals.

I'd rather settle for something self-contained as "cache-timing
resistant" (we could then have a debate regarding whether "resistant"
or "resilient" is the most suitable adjective; I'd go for the former).


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt> wrote:
>> On 27-02-2014 20:11, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> How about "cache timing safe" and "cache timing unsafe"?
>>
>> That is probably the clearest and least ambiguous option. I don't like
>> "predictable" and "pseudorandom", those terms don't need more overloads.
>> For the sake of bike-shedding, I propose "silent" and "noisy".
>
> I had to look up bike shedding.  This is definitely a bike shedding opportunity.
>
> I could get behind "silent" and "noisy".  That's better than my
> original "pure" and "dirty".
>
> How about "stealthy" and "noisy"?  Stealthy sounds cooler.  Definitely
> a bike shed moment...
>
> Bill